Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different universes in which the three different choices are made. The
three
universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of 10^100 will
then dominate and will cause the observer to find
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 08:06 AM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different
Le 14-juin-05, à 00:35, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and
Hal Finney writes:
Let us consider these flavors of altruism in the case of Stathis' puzzle:
You are one of 10 copies who are being tortured. The copies are all
being
run in lockstep with each other, as would occur if 10 identical
computers
were running 10 identical sentient programs.
Le 13-juin-05, à 21:06, Jesse Mazer a écrit :
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
If you impose the condition I discussed earlier that absolute
probabilities
don't change over time, or in terms of my analogy, that the water
levels in
each tank don't change because the total inflow
Le 14-juin-05, à 03:15, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:45:52AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To Russell: I don't understand what you mean by a conscious
description. Even the expression conscious machine can be
misleading
at some point in the reasoning.
A
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
different universes in which the three different choices are made. The
three
universes will have comparable measures. The antropic factor of 10^100
will
then dominate and will cause the observer to
Tom wrote:
Now if continuousconsciousness is not necessarily required for immortality, then why are you waiting around for copying? Won't cloning come far sooner? What is it about copying that is better than cloning.
Stathis wrote:
Why do you say that continuous consciousness is not
Hal wrote:
I actually think this is a philosphically defensible position. Why shouldone OM care about another, merely because they happen to be linked bya body? There's no a priori reason why an OM should sacrifice, it doesn'tget any benefit by doing so.
But I'll tell you why we don't work this
Title: Message
Hi everyone (in this world and all
relevantly similar ones :-),
I like the solution to the Induction /
Dragon / Exploding Cow problem that I see in work by Malcolm, Standish, Tegmark,
and Schmidhuber. So I forwarded references to Alexander Pruss, whose
dissertation raises
Dear Russell and list:
this is a personal problem due to my extremely feeble skills in computering.
I had (optimistically in past tense) problems with my internet e-mail
connection and could not get/send e-mail since the date of this post. Then 2
times I was lucky and got hundreds of email at a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:39:57PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK but it can be misleading (especially in advanced stuff!). neither a
program, nor a machine nor a body nor a brain can think. A person can
think, and manifest eself (I follow Patrick for the pronouns) through a
program, or
John Mikes wrote:
... Those posts were accessible (for me) that started with a
statement of the writer and not a lot of copies with some reply-lines
interjected. I know (and like to use) to copy the phrases to reply to but
even in a 2-week archiving it turns sour. After the first 30-40
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:54AM -0700, Brian Holtz wrote:
Hi everyone (in this world and all relevantly similar ones :-),
I like the solution to the Induction / Dragon / Exploding Cow problem that I
see in work by Malcolm, Standish, Tegmark, and Schmidhuber. So I forwarded
references to
14 matches
Mail list logo
